Major Alaskan Oil Field Closed Due to Corrosion, Rupture in Pipeline
Monday, August 07, 2006
Associated Press

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — In a sudden blow to the nation's oil supply, half the production on Alaska's North Slope was being shut down Sunday after BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. discovered severe corrosion in a Prudhoe Bay oil transit line.

BP officials said they didn't know how long the Prudhoe Bay field would be off line. "I don't even know how long it's going to take to shut it down," said Tom Williams, BP's senior tax and royalty counsel.

Once the field is shut down, in a process expected to take days, BP said oil production will be reduced by 400,000 barrels a day. That's close to 8 percent of U.S. oil production as of May 2006 or about 2.6 percent of U.S. supply including imports, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The shutdown comes at an already worrisome time for the oil industry, with supply concerns stemming both from the hurricane season and instability in the Middle East.

"We regret that it is necessary to take this action and we apologize to the nation and the State of Alaska for the adverse impacts it will cause," BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said in a statement.

A 400,000-barrel per day reduction in output would have a major impact on oil prices, said Tetsu Emori, chief commodities strategist at Mitsui Bussan Futures in Tokyo.

"Oil prices could increase by as much as $10 per barrel given the current environment," Emori said. "But we can't really say for sure how big an effect this is going to have until we have more exact figures about how much production is going to be reduced."

Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore, said he expected the impact to be minimal.

"The U.S. market is actually well-supplied; crude inventories are very high," he said. "So while this won't have any immediate impact on U.S. supplies, the market is in very high anxiety. So any significant disruption, traders will take that into account, even though there is no threat of a supply shortage."

Light, sweet crude for September delivery was up 36 cents to $74.95 a barrel in midmorning Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Malone said the field will not resume operating until the company and government regulators are satisfied it can run safely without threatening the environment.

Officials at BP, a unit of the London-based company BP PLC, learned Friday that data from an internal sensing device found 16 anomalies in 12 locations in an oil transit line on the eastern side of the field. Follow-up inspections found "corrosion-related wall thinning appeared to exceed BP criteria for continued operation," the company said in a release.

Steve Marshall, president of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc., said at an Anchorage news conference that testing in the 16 areas found losses in wall thickness of between 70 and 81 percent. Repair or replacement is required if there is over an 80 percent loss.

"The results were absolutely unexpected," he said.

Marshall said Sunday night that the eastern side of Prudhoe Bay would be shut down first, an operation anticipated to take 24 to 36 hours. The company will then move to shut down the west side, a move that could close more than 1,000 Prudhoe Bay wells.

Marshall said BP is looking at repairing, bypassing or totally replacing the line.

Only one of BP's three transit lines is operating. The third was shut down in March after up to 267,000 barrels of oil spilled. BP installed a bypass on that line in April with plans to replace the pipe.

While they suspect corrosion in both damaged lines, they can't say for sure until further tests are complete. Corrosion is primarily caused by carbon dioxide that comes up with water, oil and gas during drilling.

BP puts millions of gallons of corrosion inhibitor into the Prudhoe Bay lines each year. It also examines pipes by taking X-rays and ultrasound images.

"Up until Friday of this weekend we were of the opinion the techniques we were using were ultimately reliable," Marshall said.

Workers also found a small spill, estimated to be about 4 to 5 barrels. A barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil. The spill has been contained and clean up efforts are under way, BP said. "Our production while all this is in place is going to be marginal," said Will Vandergriff, spokesman for Gov. Frank Murkowski. "That presents some technical problems because it's a high capacity line and it's meant to be filled."

Vandergriff said he did not know exactly what potential problems a sudden drop in oil flow might cause the pipeline. Alyeska Pipeline Co. officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

A prolonged shutdown would be a major blow to domestic oil production, but even a short one could be crippling to Alaska's economy.

According to forecast figures from the Alaska Department of Revenue, a 400,000 barrels of oil per day production drop would mean approximately $4.6 million per day lost to the state. That is money going to both the state treasury and the state's oil wealth savings account, the Alaska Permanent Fund.

"That starts adding up to big bucks in a hurry," said House Finance Co-Chairman Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski. "It could start having a disastrous effect on the state as early as today."

BP said it was sending additional resources from across the state and North America to hasten the inspection of the remaining transit lines. About 40 percent of the lines have been inspected.

BP previously said it would replace a 3-mile segment of pipeline following inspections conducted after up to 267,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the frozen ground about 250 miles above the Arctic Circle in March.

House Speaker John Harris said it was admirable that BP took immediate action, although it's sure to hurt state coffers.

"This state cannot afford to have another Exxon Valdez," said Harris, R-Valdez.

The Exxon Valdez tanker emptied 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound in 1989, killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals and soiling more than 1,200 miles of rocky beach in nation's largest oil spill._________________-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

You know, I really haven't done enough research into this as I should... but corn ethanol brings up two worries for me.

A.) Can we really produce enough to take a weight off of the demand on crude oil?

B.) With the heat waves and everything else we've been experiencing.. are we past the point that our summer's are going to be more harsh with Global Warming, and will be deminishing our yearly produce production?

Ethanol is subsidized in Iowa because the farmers have more corn than they know what to with (while that sounds perfectly ok in my head, the sentence looks very odd to me). Ethanol is big business here and E85 is finally becoming more widespread. It's not perfect but both are baby steps in the right direction.

Something else to keep an eye on is ethanol produced from switchgrass. It's not used as much as corn, but the technology is being developed to do so. Since it's only used to feed livestock and is a rather hardy plant, I don't think Global Warming would significantly affect it. (yet)_________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

I forget where I was reading it but it said that corn wasn't actually very good for making ethanol because it took too much energy to convert it to a usable form and therefore the net gain was very low. Apparently Sugarcane is much cheaper to convert and therefore a better option but since we don't have a big enough sugarcane crop in the US they weren't looking at it seriously although in Southern American countries they are already using it._________________Morality: That instinctive sense of right and wrong that tells some people how everyone else should live their lives.

Joined: 10 Jul 2006Posts: 907Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject:

Mizike wrote:

Ethanol is subsidized in Iowa because the farmers have more corn than they know what to with (while that sounds perfectly ok in my head, the sentence looks very odd to me). Ethanol is big business here and E85 is finally becoming more widespread. It's not perfect but both are baby steps in the right direction.

Something else to keep an eye on is ethanol produced from switchgrass. It's not used as much as corn, but the technology is being developed to do so. Since it's only used to feed livestock and is a rather hardy plant, I don't think Global Warming would significantly affect it. (yet)

*nod* The sugar needed for ethanol can come from quite a few different sources. If memory serves, I think that Brazil uses sugar cane to produce their ethanol.[edit-typed while Xavyor was posting. I agree!]

Me, I'm of the bio-diesel camp. I think soybeans can grow nearly everywhere producint soy oil. And I believe I just looked at some stats that show that the VW Golf, running the little turbo-diesel I4, outperforms the Toyota Prius hybrid in EPA milage.

Damn..._________________-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

Joined: 10 Jul 2006Posts: 907Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject:

And see, that's some of the issue I have with some of those regulations. Getting 50 miles to the gallon has to produce less emmissions than a petrolium based car at 30, right? And add to that the zero-sum advantage of using biodiesel (the carbon put into the atmosphere is equal to (if not actually a little less than) that taken out of the atmosphere by the soybean or whatever plants.) Even if diesel is a bit dirtier than regular gas, I gotta believe this is still an advantageous way to go.

Plus (I was just talking to guys at work about this) imagine the advertising boon to McDonalds if a lot of cars were traveling down the road smelling like french friers....

Oh, and I completely agree with the prospect of diesel electric cars. Not only cleaner, if we use biodiesel, but also much more fuel efficient. We lose a lot of energy in regular cumbusion engines due to friction._________________-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!